1234

Running 26.2 miles to be faster at 3.1 (Read 1125 times)

    I set my PR in the 5k in outdoor track after an indoor season in which I focused on the 1000m. What does that mean? 

     

    That you haven't PR'd at 5k since college?

    Runners run.


    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

      I set my PR in the 5k in outdoor track after an indoor season in which I focused on the 1000m. What does that mean? 

       

      That you're over the hill. Leave track to us young guys.

      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

        That you haven't PR'd at 5k since college?

         

        True! Too much f&%^$%^ marathon training!

          .

            I'm disappointed with Fleshman's 2:37. That makes it seem more like a long run for her than a race. Realistically that's exactly what it was for her, but we had to deal with the media treating it like it would be a race. I can't blame her for taking the pay day or for wanting to increase the distance of her long runs, but 26.2 is a really arbitrary distance.

             

            This just makes me appreciate Ed Moran's 2:11:46 debut more. He definitely raced it.

             

            P.S. I don't mean any disrespect for somebody just wanting to run the marathon versus race it at 100% effort. But I do mean to express some disappointment if the NYRR gave you an appearance fee, hotel room, elite athlete start, New York Times coverage, and you didn't give it 100%. I say this not as a hater, but as a fan of Fleshman who thinks she's way better than the 2:37 she put up.

             

            FWIW, I think she came through the half in 1:14 and blew up.

              I'm disappointed with Fleshman's 2:37. That makes it seem more like a long run for her than a race. Realistically that's exactly what it was for her, but we had to deal with the media treating it like it would be a race. I can't blame her for taking the pay day or for wanting to increase the distance of her long runs, but 26.2 is a really arbitrary distance.

               

              This just makes me appreciate Ed Moran's 2:11:46 debut more. He definitely raced it.

               

              P.S. I don't mean any disrespect for somebody just wanting to run the marathon versus race it at 100% effort. But I do mean to express some disappointment if the NYRR gave you an appearance fee, hotel room, elite athlete start, New York Times coverage, and you didn't give it 100%. I say this not as a hater, but as a fan of Fleshman who thinks she's way better than the 2:37 she put up.

               

              "Fleshman had finished in the top 20 — 16th over all, second among Americans to Molly Pritz, who was 12th." (from the article)

                FWIW, I think she came through the half in 1:14 and blew up.

                Impossible. I saw her at mile 16. hahahahahah HAAAAAAAAA

                "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

                  .


                  Feeling the growl again

                    I was questioning that as well.  Even if the premise of more marathon like training would give her what she needs is correct, how does compressing the training into a short cycle and then beating herself up on a marathon race help her?  Unless mental toughness was her problem I suppose. 

                     

                     

                     

                    Well, only 7 weeks is not "marathon trainng", it's a cram session, pure and simple.

                     

                    I think I eluded to it earlier but it's not that doing a marathon training cycle is going to lead to you running a 5K PR if you were to skip the marathon at the end and run a 5K.  That's not the point, though it happens for some.  Especially for more advanced runners with solid 5K PRs, it's the benefits that marathon TRAINING gives you that will take you do the next level when you layer on race-specific (5K, 10K, whatever) training.

                     

                    Her 5K PR looks to be what, I saw?  14:58?  She was hardly prepared for the marathon if she has that kind of speed for 5K and blew up going out in 1:14 for the first half.  The strength and stamina a good marathon cycle would give her may serve her well later in the shorter distances.

                    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                     

                      I'm in a way baffled and, to be honest with you, appalled by some of the responses here in regards to training for a marathon to improve 5k performance at the site where most people suggest to "run a lot, mostly easy, sometimes fast..."  

                       

                      I have said this many times to many people and I do honestly feel this way--I have learnt just as much from all of you people at RA site.  I have been working on how to put together beginner's program to be added to our on-line training program (and Eric has been a MAJOR instrumental figure for this project!) and I have utilized a lot of elements I have learnt here in creating this program.  Frankly, I am appalled how much many people don't seem to understand and, when we talk about "training", first we only see superficial specificity, not physiology or what's happening inside, and, two, only look at weekly distance being the measure for "training".  

                       

                      First, let me say that, just because I'm a strong advocate of Lydiard method, I do admit it MAY NOT work for everybody; though we still believe the principles still work for everybody--60 years old to 16-year-old, a 4-minute-miler to a 4-hour marathon runner.  I don't mean to come out arrogant but I honestly feel that I have probably seen more in the running circuit than any of you guys here.  I had been criticized to be "elitist", though that really contradict what I just mentioned above; one person, carry-over from good old CoolRunning, criticized me for not understanding slower runners.  As I recall, she was stuck at something like 5 hours or 5:30 marathon for years and never got any faster and that being because of her "genetics".  Well, the recent individual (a couple actually) that I helped improved from 5:30 to 4:50 with 9 weeks of my help.  I was just as elated as they were but it proved that the principles work regardless of the level--though some may still come back and claim that they "had the genes to begin with".  

                       

                      I wasn't quite sure if Jeff was being sarcastic or serious; but, just to clarify, when I say "marathon training helps you for better 5k", I'm not talking about all those long runs and long tempo runs and volume at slower pace with no faster runs (which is wrong as well) and carry that on till the 5k race.  There's a time to run a lot (marathon conditioning) and there's a time to sharpen up.  At lets run.com, when we say Lydiard, some dogmatic critics always come back and say that Lydiard training lacks "specificity".  This is something Lydiard himself had to fight for over 50-years; Peter Snell did 20 X 400m in 60 seconds or faster.  How much fast running do you need?  It's not like he would run 100MPW all along and all of a sudden stepped on the track and ran world mile record.  Now THAT is balance in training.  Most people don't seem to understand that.  I wonder, to the guy who mentioned 50MPW being his 5k training and 70+ being his marathon training; well, I wonder if he actually tried to run, by balancing the entire program, a good 5k on 70+ mileage...?  And if he did and didn't work out, wonder if he actually balanced his training...  My gut feeling is; I highly doubt it.

                       

                      I recently had a personal experience of coming off from a lay-off (being lazy?) and trying to get back in shape by, well, "running".  I started out running this hilly loop in 1:02.  In about 4 weeks, I dropped it down to 39 minutes.  I did that all by simply running, no speed training to "get faster".  I did that by getting into shape.  I wonder how many of you actually had this experience of really getting into shape by running; you go out and run a 2-hour loop for the first time and you are absolutely shuttered, exhausted.  And weeks and a few months later, you get so strong that you are literally flying over the same loop.  You may get the same feeling by working out on track, with endless quarters.  But, for some reason, and someone with running logic may be able to answer it better than I can but, all I know is; that it is quite different.  You are running faster if you train your body by doing lots of fast quarters; but you just can't put them all together--in other words, you're fast but you can't race faster.   May sound contradicting but that's what it is.  On the other hand, you run a lot at slower pace; then the pace will quicken and you'll be flying!!  That feeling, and I had had it many time (when that was...25 pounds ago... :-( or simply in a good shape) but that's the feeling; you just can't run any slower.  I guess the best way to explain is; is you watch "Saint Ralph" and, in it, he's running a mile repeat (which was a bit ridiculous...) and he's literally "flying" or "running in the air" in the last one; that's how you feel.  And THAT is how you get to the last 1km of your 5k race and you're just sprinting as fast as you can and keep on going.  Rob Economy told me that he did his interval based on our Interval Pace Chart and, being a 2:47 guy, I thought he'd come back and say that the suggested pace was too easy.  On the contrary, he said it was pretty hard.  He was one of very few people who had ever said that.  So many people had come to us and asked if the pace is okay because the pace seems too easy for them.  The point is; those guys are usually 3:30~4:30 guys.  Then there's Rob whose marathon is 2:47...  Those guys can easily run faster; they just can't put them together.

                       

                      If I give more "elite" examples, again, many might think such principles only apply to elite runners (though I just don't understand how those selected few has different physiology...); Dick Quax told me that, when he moved up to 5000m and bumped up his training volume, his 1500m time improved by 4 seconds.  Michael Stember was trying to improve his 1500m performance (though he still made the Olympic team in 1500m) by running 400 and 800, trying to improve his speed, didn't really help him that much.  I told his coach what he needed was to do more stamina work like 5000m or cross country.  Gabe Jennings had a spurt of come-back a few years back and, against expectation of many critics, made a pretty good come-back.  At that time, Dick Brown was coaching him and he told me pretty much the only difference he made was that he made sure Gabe would do a 2-hour run on weekend and bump up his total volume DURING THE CONDITIONING.  Jeff, you say that Radcliffe is the worst example to compare.  Well, I don't know why because, if she's perfect for marathon (and I thought that's what you said), her 30:0X for 10 that she ran solo at either Commonwealth Games or European Champs AFTER she turned her focus to the marathon, in my opinion, was one of the greatest 10000m ever run (by a woman) and that, if you're right about her marathon ability, was a great improvement in her 10.  Just so you know; Kristen running a good solid 5k helped her marathon but, at the same time, she came down, after Boston, and had no trouble setting another PR in her 5k as well as running a pretty good solid mile in, something like 5:38.  It's not that she was training for a marathon and set those.  But rather it was the strength she had developed from the marathon, or marathon training, that enabled her to do that.

                       

                      I tweeted that NYT article this mooring, saying that the EXACT same comment was made by Dr. Peter Snell back in 2000; and he proved it back in 1963 when he ran his one and the only marathon in 2:41, Gallowalking the most of the final 3 miles, and set 3 world records in 800, 880 and the mile in less than 2 weeks about, if I remember it correctly, 6 or 8 weeks after running that marathon.  I guess he was special...

                        I'm disappointed with Fleshman's 2:37. That makes it seem more like a long run for her than a race. Realistically that's exactly what it was for her, but we had to deal with the media treating it like it would be a race. I can't blame her for taking the pay day or for wanting to increase the distance of her long runs, but 26.2 is a really arbitrary distance.

                         

                        This just makes me appreciate Ed Moran's 2:11:46 debut more. He definitely raced it.

                         

                        P.S. I don't mean any disrespect for somebody just wanting to run the marathon versus race it at 100% effort. But I do mean to express some disappointment if the NYRR gave you an appearance fee, hotel room, elite athlete start, New York Times coverage, and you didn't give it 100%. I say this not as a hater, but as a fan of Fleshman who thinks she's way better than the 2:37 she put up.

                        You said later that you were being hypocritical or sarcastic...  Otherwise, I'm sorry, dude, but I'd have to say; how dare you say such crap.  I thought you did run a marathon.  So you're saying she just picked up a free trip to NY and appearance fee and coasted through it?  You really don't understand athletics or marathoning, do you?

                         

                        Peter Snell told me this story before; back in 1950s, a guy by the name of Murray Halberg, a man who literally crawled up from the death-bed to become an Olympic champion, set out to run this mile race (on a grass track) in somewhere either Wellington or Wanganui--can't remember.  He wanted to be the first New Zealander to go sub-4 or the first sub-4 on NZ solid or something.  He narrowly missed it; something like 4:01 or 4:03 or something.  Naturally, he was disappointed.  Next morning he went to a local restaurant for breakfast.  This guy walked up to him with his son and said that he brought his son to see the first sub-4 mile in NZ, and said, right in Halberg's face, "You let us down..."  Your comment reminded me of this story.  How do YOU determine 100% effort?  Did you know a guy by the name of Paul Tergat, probably one of the greatest distance runners Kenya has ever seen, a gracious competitor, a real gentleman.  He held the world record for the marathon at one time; I believe he might be the first man to go under 2:05...  At any rate, you know he didn't even win the marathon for 3 or 4 years after he switched to the marathon.  I guess that was out of question for you...  Such a disgrace...  Give me a break...


                        Feeling the growl again

                            I don't mean to come out arrogant but I honestly feel that I have probably seen more in the running circuit than any of you guys here.  I had been criticized to be "elitist",

                           

                          "It ain't braggin' if you back it up."

                          --Kid Rock

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                            You said later that you were being hypocritical or sarcastic...  Otherwise, I'm sorry, dude, but I'd have to say; how dare you say such crap.  I thought you did run a marathon.  So you're saying she just picked up a free trip to NY and appearance fee and coasted through it?  You really don't understand athletics or marathoning, do you?

                             

                            ...  I guess that was out of question for you...  Such a disgrace...  Give me a break...

                             

                            Nobby, I feel your zeal is sometimes mistaken.  If I may offer some advice: 

                             

                            There is a musical troupe called Naughty by Nature.  You may already know them.  Anyways, they have this line in their song "Hip Hop Hooray."  The singer is explaining why he had gotten involved in a short-term relationship with another fellow's girl.  He explains, it's cause I'm Naughty by Natcha, not cause I hate cha!

                             

                            Maybe, after laying the smack-down, you should sign off It's cause I'm Nobby by Natcha, not cause I hate cha!

                             

                            Here is the video, for your review.

                            "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

                              Nobby, I was being a bit flippant, and I understand the general point that running volume is the best way to get fit. Fitness is fitness and there are tried and true ways to get there.

                               

                              That said, I guess I'd rather just talk about proper training related to a particular race, rather than saying something like marathon training is the best training for 5k. I get the point, and maybe that's the best way to communicate to inexperienced runners some very basic and general principles of training in a quick way. 

                               

                              On the other hand, (and this may just be a pet peeve of mine) I think the marathon gets way too much play and credit in the online world, and actually I think that I misunderstood a bit this idea of marathon training being the best training, and it led (perhaps) to some errors in training in the past. I was hoping to play the devil's advocate a bit and get us talking about the differences between 5k training and marathon training.

                               

                              As for Paula, she ran a great 10k as well, but her marathon performance may be the greatest performance by any runner ever! It was a quibbling remark, but I just wanted to comment that it is possible to cherry pick examples to prove our favorite point.

                               

                              MTA: Let's not forget the importance of the marathon cooldown as well.

                                I wonder, to the guy who mentioned 50MPW being his 5k training and 70+ being his marathon training; well, I wonder if he actually tried to run, by balancing the entire program, a good 5k on 70+ mileage...?  And if he did and didn't work out, wonder if he actually balanced his training...  My gut feeling is; I highly doubt it.

                                 

                                No, haven't tried a 5k on 70+ miles per week. That was the point of my post, I don't think my turnover is as quick in "marathon training" as in 5k training. That may be my spring target a fast 5k off more miles and the 5k types of workouts.

                                 

                                Jeez, I've been running for over 20 years and I'm running my fastest times, now. Only because I'm starting to figure out what actually works for me. BUT, its a balance of more miles and staying injury free.

                                 

                                My first marathon like many was cookie cutter 40 miles per week or so training program. Result 3:57. It took me 15 years to get 3:05.

                                1234